187 Responses

I don't remember the 90 days fire at will law ever being mentioned in the same sentence as the first 100 days.

And it notably wasn't mentioned in the speech from the throne. This was a stealth policy, designed to be sprung on us by surprise and rammed through under urgency before anyone could object. The Douglas-Richardson blitzkrieg all over again. It's a very bad start, and it suggests an utterly contemptuous attitude towards democracy.

On the climate change thing, if they hang the select committee out they might get overtaken by events.

This article in the grauniad(linky love - give them your ad $$!) suggests that people may in future be able to sue polluters. So NZ farmers, electricity utilities and possibly SUV drivers could be sued for flooding London, for instance.

The overwhelming direction of stories and editorial comment has been highly partisan, as partisan as I recall the Sunday Star (Times?) was in 1999 in the few months preceding Labour's win. I don't think it's healthy but I think it's close to established practice now.

In 1969 the Dominion ran a banner front-page link to an editorial entitled The Dominion Votes National. Sometime in the intervening years that kind of blatant partisanship moved beyond the pale. While the Herald appears more than a little nostalgic for those times, there's still a vaguely guilty attempt to appear to be even-handed.

Are the DNA-storage laws being pushed through in the urgency package as well?

Not sure. I haven't read anything that says they will be, but we'll find out when the legislation is tabled and urgency accorded. Surely they're not stupid (or contemptuous) enough to think this doesn't need to go to Select Committee. But then again...

And it notably wasn't mentioned in the speech from the throne. This was a stealth policy, designed to be sprung on us by surprise and rammed through under urgency before anyone could object. The Douglas-Richardson blitzkrieg all over again. It's a very bad start, and it suggests an utterly contemptuous attitude towards democracy.

I would say that there's going to be one hell of a shit fight about the way this has been introduced, but then again I guess we can't expect the journos to stop their collective John Key handjob and return to their keyboards to write much about this.

It's time for Andrew Little to step up and earn his title as the anointed one. What a gift for him.

I don't remember the 90 days fire at will law ever being mentioned in the same sentence as the first 100 days. Not even yesterday when Key was talking about the pre-Christmas urgency agenda Cabinet had signed off.

A very poor start indeed. Just the sort of thing that gives the Opposition a good platform to criticise the Government. The omission from the 90 day statement and the speech from the throne is all the more distressing.

What's also frustrating about this is that these workers will get none of the protection offered to workers made redundent as a result of the financial crisis.

"Last week, the Maori Party caucus decided we would not support the 90-Day Employment Probation Bill introduced by National MP, Wayne Mapp, and that we would vote against it when it comes back to the House. ...

Our decision was based on the following arguments: The Bill would take away workers’ rights, including, the right to be dismissed for a good reason, the right to be paid for work done and the right to redress for bad treatment.

The most vulnerable would suffer: young people with few skills; the tens of thousands of unemployed who want a job; the many thousands in low-skill jobs with no bargaining strength; and the hundreds of thousands in work who want to change jobs. And of course Maori, who make up a large sector of the unemployed, and the low-skilled workforce would be particularly vulnerable to this legislation. ...

This Bill is a recipe for the slave days and we’re all better off without it."

(We should find out this afternoon if those Mana-Enhancing Baubles have worked their charm ...)

I would say that there's going to be one hell of a shit fight about the way this has been introduced, but then again I guess we can't expect the journos to stop their collective John Key handjob and return to their keyboards to write much about this.

Try following those linky things, James. Meanwhile, the actual Parliamentarians would have a word or two to say which will be duly reported. And, as usually happens, if a piece of legislation doesn't have the numbers -- regardless of urgency -- it fails.

But the Maori Party caucus are discussing their position this afternoon, so we might hear today.

I can't see why they should support either the bill or urgency. It doesn't affect their portfolios, and the gov't will still have the votes. They have no excuse to roll over on this one.

Point well made Simon. I think this is an unecessarily early test for the Maori Party, but it'll certainly reveal a lot about them and their prospects over the next three years.

Key's misjudged this IMHO. Of course I object to the policy given my politics, but the misjudgment I'm most surprised by is the tactical one. In the lead up to Christmas, when everyone's thinking about family and holidays and fun-filled-frolicks, Key's knobbling vulnerable workers.

I guess we can't expect the journos to stop their collective John Key handjob and return to their keyboards to write much about this.

(Sigh) Journalists HAVE written about this. That's how you know about it. It's not up to journalists to critique the government - that's the role of the opposition. Journalists are then meant to report both the government and opposition viewpoints and if you read the story I've linked to you'll see that's exactly what's happened.

(Sigh) Journalists HAVE written about this. That's how you know about it.

Well, yes. But the headline starts with the word 'Labour', which, in the current media climate, is short-hand for 'please don't take me seriously'. The only people who won't like this bill, the story suggests, are Unions and the government's 'opponents', and we all know what a bunch of uncool sad-sacks they are.

The Stuff poll on the matter is currently running 66% in favour, which suggests either that two-thirds of the Stuff website's visitors are small-business owners, or a lot of people have absolutely no clue about what's in their economic best interests. Perhaps they're just excited at the prospect of other people losing their jobs.

Yes, and you will note that not once in the story to which I had linked did Ms Watkins mention that this move had not previously been signalled / included in the "100 day plan". You can accuse me of pedantry, but don't you think that's something worth saying? Especially if you're a senior political reporter?

It's not up to journalists to critique the government - that's the role of the opposition. Journalists are then meant to report both the government and opposition viewpoints and if you read the story I've linked to you'll see that's exactly what's happened.

Can someone let them know that, then? Because it frequently doesn't work that way.

P.S. I hadn't seen the story to which you linked, Danyl. And I agree, that it is a good piece of reporting. Coincidence that it's an agency story?

The Stuff poll on the matter is currently running 66% in favour, which suggests either that two-thirds of the Stuff website's visitors are small-business owners, or a lot of people have absolutely no clue about what's in their economic best interests.

Or that political parties stack these polls for their own advantage, in the same way they flood "letters to the editor" with proxy spam.

Well, yes. But the headline starts with the word 'Labour', which, in the current media climate, is short-hand for 'please don't take me seriously'.

Um... Caleb, the nice thing about being in Government is... well, you tend to get a wee bit more attention. But if you're arguing that Labour needs an extreme rebranding, I don't think that will go down very well. :)

Yes, and you will note that not once in the story to which I had linked did Ms Watkins mention that this move had not previously been signalled / included in the "100 day plan". You can accuse me of pedantry, but don't you think that's something worth saying? Especially if you're a senior political reporter?

James: I really think busting a blood vessel about a "secret agenda" being pushed by wannabe Rommels is absurd. I've never been a big enthusiast for urgency motions on principle, because I think successive governments have abused it. To take on particularly egregious case, was it really a matter of extreme urgency to pass a bill amending the Electoral Act to protect Harry Duynhoven's seat -- and incidentally avoid a by-election nobody was particularly keen on?

Oh, James, given that I'm listening to Goff's incandescence at the "consitutional outrage" of legislation being passed under urgency, I'd love some senior political reporter to tote up how much legislation was passed on his watch -- and with his support -- without select committee scrutiny and public submission. How about retrospectively sanitising MP's unlawful electioneering with public money?